Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203.

661 citing documents.

Jessica Lin Love, n/k/a/ Jessica Lin Lopez Love, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
In re the Marriage of: Jonathon Henry Ortner, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(explaining that this court exceeds its scope of review if it “usu rp[s] the role of the [district] court by reweighing the evidence and finding its own facts”); n.2 (Minn. 1979) (noting that an appellate court’s responsibility is to correct e
In re the Custody of: R. T. R., C. T. R., and S. C. T. R., Robby Romero, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 199, 202 & n.3 (Minn. 1997) ().
A19-0676 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
In re the Marriage of: Michael Dennis Dewar, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Gena Maria Kramp, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court exceeds its scope of review if it “ usurp[s] the role of the [district] court by reweighing the evidence and finding its own fac ts.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Larry Allan Keeler, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Application of: Hollis John Larson for a Change of Name. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tony Flattum, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that “[t] he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying err ors and then c orrecting them ”); Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid-America Emps.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
In re the Estate of: Pauline Mary Serpico, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J. R. S. and T. A. S., … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4 The district court credited the guardian ad litem’s testimony, noting that her opinions were “well-founded and supported by the facts.” A determination of the best interests of a child involves credib ility determinations, In re Tanghe , and this court defers to the cred ibility determinations of the district court
In re the Matter of: Awal Ismael Hussein, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Benjamin Walter Eidem, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Mary Elizabeth Moline, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Minn. 2019
In re the Estate of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sokkhan Ka, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
9 Sefkow v. Sefkow , 10 (Minn. 1988) (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
In re the Marriage of: Diana Lynne Neumann, n/k/a Diana Lynne deVries, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that the court of appeals is not permitted to find facts).
Eric Robert Mitzuk, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Aaron Olson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fr. William Graham, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Our function “is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” Sefkow v. Sefkow
In re the Custody of: B. L. F. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
A18-1408 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Deference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses.”
, A18-1155 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (sta ting appellate courts defer to district court’s credibility determinations).
In re the Custody of: S. K. S. Christian Schut, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Tonka Tours, d 723, 728 (Minn. 1985) (stating that whether a party acted in good faith is, essentially, a credibility determination); (stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations); (stating that “[q]uestions of .
In re the Matter of: David Allen Engh, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Al Dressely, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: H.W.-S. and D.T.W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988).
In re the Matter of: Dennis J. Arvig, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Don Modeen, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
.”); (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).
Gabrielle Marie Geraci, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(recognizing appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).
In re the Marriage of: Yusuf Haji-Ismail Ali, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that a reviewing co urt defers to the 3 Father also appears to argue that the district court made inap propriate findings on the best-interests factors and failed to apply them judiciously.
Olimpia Onofre Cedillo, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And to the extent that they would like to retry the case before us, we note that as an appellate court we are not permitted to usurp “the role of the trial court by reweighing the evidence.” Sefkow v. Sefkow
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: M. Z., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Here again, the district court is in the best position to make credibility determinations.4 Sefkow v. Sefkow , (stating that appellate courts defer to distri ct court credibility determinat ions).
In the Matter of: Naomi Rae Marx, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Amy Alyssa Post, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly Kay Seidel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(we defer to the district court’s credibility determinations); d 181, 183 (Minn. 1966) (it is not the appellate court’s role to find facts).
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sefkow v. Sefkow , , 210 (Minn. 1988) ; Gada v. Dedefo , , 514 (Minn. App. 2004).
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ann Bersaw, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then corr ecting them.”
In re the Marriage of: Marcus Shuntae Pope, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Curtis Glenn Marks, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We generally defer to the district co urt’s credibility determinations, and the district court’s credibility determination is well supported.
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Mark Allen Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019